PETER S. KNOBEL
Radical transformation can take place within a halakhic framework. In the paper “Reform Judaism and Same Sex Marria ges: A Halakhic Inquiry, ” I will outline in greater detail the halakhic categories that justify change based on the authority of the contemporary posek/et to alter the decisions of previous generations, and the use of extrahalakhic material to change the halakhah.
Notes 1. Mark Washofsky,“Reinforcing Our Jewish Identity: Issues of Personal Status,” Central Conference of American Rabbis Yearbook, 1994.
which were the underpinnings of modernity, have run their course. They have been replaced by Post Modernism . But, in fact, there is no clear dominant ideology in liberal Judaism beyond autonomy of the individual, which has been translated, often in the name of justice, into support for the individual right to choose one’s life style options and then to normalize this as Jewishly acceptable. Society as a whole has undergone a revolution in relations between men and women, in its understanding of sexual identity, and in relations between Jews and non-Jews . As we have rediscovered particularism, we have not fully explored how it affects our decision making. Having spent six months on sabbatical in England, I have learned first hand that the attitude of Progressive Jews, who are a minority in the Jewish community, are more conservative about making controversial changes in Jewish law, especially in matters of personal status. The issue of our relation to Klal Yisrael and the effect of our decisions on other liberal Jewish communities, especially Israel , dominates these discussions. In North America we are freer to find our own course because we represent the majority of the North American Jewish community. In a world of instant communication, what happens in one community has an immediate impact on another community. On the other hand, the realities of each community are different, and what might be appropriate in one place may not be in another. One community will frequently make a decision that only later will become acceptable elsewhere.
3.“We discovered we were no longer talking 70 or even arguing with each other, rather we were conducting a series of parallel monologues in place of the dialogue that has served us so well in the past one.” CCAR Responsum 5756.8,“On Homosexual Marriage,” p. 1. This statement illustrates the difficulty that this issue poses, but in a deeper sense it poses a dilemma for Reform Jewish decision making. The Responsa Committee, for example, can formulate a decision precisely at the same time as another committee; in this case the Ad Hoc Committee on Human Sexuality, is working on the same issue. Their respective methodologies and conclusions can be similar or disparate. Such a situation provides a plurality of responses. One can either decry the lack of a unitary position of one can applaud the respect for diversity. But this can also lead to organizational paralysis. In a time when neither methodology nor ideology can be understood as a given, decision making becomes much more complex.